Sydney College of the Arts - Faculty Response to the Green Paper

The following is a response by the Faculty of Sydney College of the Arts to the University of Sydney Green Paper:

SCA welcomes the publication of the Green Paper as an important contribution to strategic conversations concerning the future of the University and its stakeholders. We consider it to be a comprehensive review of issues confronting the University together with a critical assessment of the way in which these have been addressed in the past. Of particular value in the Green Paper is the identification of the educational value of critical thinking and generic skills, commitment to ‘education’ not merely training, the importance of theory and praxis in research, maximization of student potential, openness to all nationalities and educational equality of opportunity (social transformation and knowledge transfer), internal and external engagement. All of this we recognize as representative of our own core beliefs and practices, and we feel strongly that the culture of SCA accords perfectly with the stated strategic purpose.

SCA has a clear and committed sense of its identity and purpose, as one of the premier art schools nationally and internationally. Our ‘brand’ identity in this sense is strong, and continues to strengthen. This is helped in part, though, by our situation as a constituent part of the University of Sydney. Recognizing this, we are absolutely committed to continuing to forge our future successes as a fully fully-functioning part of the University. This, we believe, is possible whilst maintaining our strong sense of discipline identity. We therefore welcome the recognition and confirmation, enshrined in the Green Paper, of SCA’s status as a professional Faculty. This accords with both our own sense of identity and the way in which external stakeholders, and especially the ‘profession’ – that is, the artworld – thinks of us.

SCA’s character and culture is enshrined in its existing statement of aims:

“SCA aims to be the premier provider of contemporary art learning and research nationally and in the region and an acknowledged world leader.

As a Faculty of Australia’s first University, SCA will contribute significantly to its cultural and academic life, as well as to society and the community at large. It will achieve its vision through: attracting and retaining the highest quality students and staff; delivering innovative and current learning and teaching in contemporary art, especially at postgraduate levels, which will be a key growth area; producing international quality research outputs appropriate to artist academics in contemporary arts; engaging with the professional and local communities at all levels; and attracting external funding for projects in all areas of its activities. Through its commitment to flexible, adaptive learning in studio programs centered in contemporary practice, SCA will provide students with the capacity to be leading contemporary artists and fully engaged cultural participants, in the knowledge that a contemporary art education can underpin professional practice in all disciplines.”

We believe that this aligns perfectly with the general narratives on research and learning and teaching in the Green Paper. Furthermore, in certain aspirational aspects of the Paper, we believe that we already have much to offer the University as a whole in terms of existing practices, for example in flexible entry, student-centered learning and social inclusion. Also in student exchanges, which is an area in which SCA demonstrates leadership and in which the Green Paper reiterates what is everyday practice at SCA. We believe that there is much more work to be done across the University on issues of inclusion and equity. Whilst we applaud the attempt in the Green Paper to begin to address social inclusion and indigeneity, we see the document as very sparse in its attention to gender, disability, and the social context of its internationalism.

We disagree in general with claims made in the Green Paper about duplication of SCA programs in other parts of the University, and where this might be argued, see it as part of the inevitable duplication of which the Green Paper speaks. Nowhere else are highly specialized undergraduate and postgraduate Visual Arts programs delivered, including research routes at Masters and Doctoral levels tailored specifically for practice-based projects. This said, we believe that there are a number opportunities, through collaboration and forging new relationships, to enrich the SCA experience and to add to the overall University student offering. The area of Film and Digital Arts is one case in point, where productive relationships with complementary units in the faculties of Arts and Architecture, Design and Planning can be imagined without dilution of the offering in any unit. In the discipline of Design, we foresee exciting developments. This is a tremendously important area in the 21st Century, with interdisciplinary implications for every Faculty in the University. At its core it exists primarily in the Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, and to a lesser extent in some of the sub-discipline specialisms at SCA. We believe that the opportunity exists for SCA and Architecture, Design and Planning to work together to develop Design at the University into a key strength – both at curriculum and research levels. We believe that this should not be achieved at the expense of our respective specialized offerings, but be additional to them.

In research, SCA welcomes continued recognition by the University of practice-based work and outcomes, whilst acknowledging an increasingly rich and broad-based culture of research in the Faculty. In the ‘rhetorical space’ of Creative and Performing Arts research, much is still to be achieved in Australia, and SCA sees a need for a clear and strong presence and voice in this area, with the ability to conduct continued advocacy internally and externally. This will be best achieved by some kind of formalization of the relationship between SCA, SCM, Architecture, Design and Planning, and the University Museums and Collections. Further detailed conversation is necessary on this point, but it is conceivable that an alliance of these core areas (with other smaller units and interest groups being also related in some way) is forged that may include some kind of ‘clustering’. The Deans of each Faculty and the Director of the Museums and Collections have clear roles to play, individually and severally in this advocacy, but most especially, it will be essential for the Chair of the ‘cluster’ to be able to speak for the sectors and their stakeholders. We wish to stress that we believe that the culture of Engineering is too distant from this notion and that we would strongly resist any proposed addition of Engineering to such a cluster (needless to say, this would not prevent the continuance of existing links – formal and informal – or the creation of new ones). Similarly, and in spite of some obvious synergies with parts of the Arts Faculty, because of the specialist, professional nature of SCA, we would resist any proposed inclusion of SCA into a generalist College of Arts and Sciences.

SCA recognizes that some structural change will be necessary as a result of strategic directions undertaken during this process. We welcome the clear message that more important than size of units is the logic of structure in which they sit, their academic integrity as disciplines, and flexibility to achieve transdisciplinary benefits. We believe that structural reforms should be driven primarily by culture, and that other matters, such as administrative efficiency gains, curriculum reform, and financial reform can only arise where they are a part of the logic and process of structural reform. Currently, from the particular point of view of SCA, which is a single Faculty entity, on a remote campus, it is hard to see how any further administrative efficiencies might be either desirable or possible.

In its current manifestation SCA continues to prosper. Driven by its strong sense of identity and purpose, the Faculty has grown, diversified within the parameters of discipline specialism, and been financially sound, sitting comfortably in the University. We believe it is possible to continue as a discreet unit (recognizing that only since the removal of the College structure in 2006 has SCA not been part of some larger agglomeration of Faculties), but also see the logic of the desire for SCA to ‘cluster’ with cognate units.

We propose the following possible models for consideration. In an ideal world, we believe that Model 1 is preferable, but recognize the great opportunities that would be created by Model 2, so long as brand identity and specialist strengths of the constituent parts were maintained:

Model 1 Status quo. Specialist, professional Faculty.
Model 2 Creative and Performing Arts and Architecture Cluster
Includes SCA, SCM, Architecture, Design & Planning, Museums and Collections.
Model 3 School of Art, Architecture and Design
SCA and Architecture, Design & Planning, with development of new, discreet Design unit.

We do not consider it appropriate for SCA to become part of a ‘vertical’ unit that includes either the Faculty of Engineering or Arts, for the reasons mentioned above.